[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-11 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Ok, https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest- noble/noble/amd64/u/ufw/20240211_163608_4a05d@/log.gz (the one for python3-defaults/3.12.1-0ubuntu1) passed with 0.36.2-4 so hopefully this bug will stay closed! :) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-11 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> From my reading (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/3661), installing python3-setuptools instead of python3-distutils should be sufficient, with a new enough setuptools, which we have in noble. Uploaded 0.36.2-4 to unstable, it migrated to noble-proposed and awaiting autopkgtests. --

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-10 Thread Jamie Strandboge
>From my reading (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/3661), installing python3-setuptools instead of python3-distutils should be sufficient, with a new enough setuptools, which we have in noble. ** Bug watch added: github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues #3661

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-10 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I can also reproduce if I have python3-setuptools installed, but don't have python3-distutils installed and use SETUPTOOLS_USE_DISTUTILS=stdlib. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-10 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Mathias, So, this is a little hard to fix with the archive packages now and I'm not sure where people are going with the 3.12 updates. I can get python3.12 reasonably easily enough but debian/tests/control has: # root unittests under python3 Tests: root-unittest Depends: iptables,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-07 Thread Jamie Strandboge
fyi, I plan to fix this but probably not til next week. My plan is to adjst the import to conditionally (or fall back to) import setuptools.distutil and then adjust the Build-Depends/autopkgtests to specify python3-setuptools. I may do something else longer term, but that should get things going

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-02-02 Thread Jamie Strandboge
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/0.36.2-3/+build/27739360 built fine. Closing. ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-01-31 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I'll upload a fix for that tomorrow. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051540 Title: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default Status in ufw: Fix Committed

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-01-31 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Another fix is needed for python 3.12: Performing tests 'good/reports' - installing - result: FAIL: 4a5,8 > /<>/tests/testarea/lib/python/ufw/util.py:483: SyntaxWarning: > invalid escape sequence '\.' > quads = re.split('\.', nm) > /<>/tests/testarea/lib/python/ufw/util.py:745:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2051540] Re: ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default

2024-01-31 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ufw Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: ufw Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => In Progress ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstr

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2019856] Re: Add missing ARM-cores to support Grace-based systems

2024-01-20 Thread Jamie Nguyen
Verified on 22.04 using util-linux=2.37.2-4ubuntu3.2 $ apt policy util-linux util-linux: Installed: 2.37.2-4ubuntu3.2 Candidate: 2.37.2-4ubuntu3.2 Version table: *** 2.37.2-4ubuntu3.2 500 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports jammy-proposed/main arm64 Packages 100

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2047286] [NEW] package perl-modules-5.34 5.34.0-3ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: unable to stat './usr/share/perl/5.34.0/unicore/lib/ExtPict/Y.pl' (which was about to be ins

2023-12-23 Thread Jamie Somers
Public bug reported: Cant install or update Ubuntu Server ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 22.04 Package: perl-modules-5.34 5.34.0-3ubuntu1.2 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.15.0-88.98-generic 5.15.126 Uname: Linux 5.15.0-88-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 2.20.11-0ubuntu82.5 AptOrdering:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2036358] Re: systemd wait-online now times out after jammy and lunar upgrade

2023-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> If you are using NetworkManager, then systemd-networkd.service (and associated units like systemd-networkd-wait-online.service) should NOT be enabled. With the caveat that I am not sure why you have systemd- networkd enabled in the first place, I would recommend that you simply disable it: > $

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2036358] Re: systemd wait-online now times out after jammy and lunar upgrade

2023-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
>> On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager > To be clear, does this mean you have no network interfaces that are configured to use networkd? Hey Steve :) So, this system is quite old. I think the first install was 16.04 and it went through a bunch of upgrades (mostly interim until

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2036358] Re: systemd wait-online now times out after jammy and lunar upgrade

2023-09-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Description changed: On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager and upgrading to systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.10, wait-online now times out which prevents - logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it does. This seems to be introduced by - the change for + logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2036358] [NEW] systemd wait-online now times out after jammy and lunar upgrade

2023-09-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Public bug reported: On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager and upgrading to systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.10, wait-online now times out which prevents logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it does. This seems to be introduced by the change for

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1982218] Re: wait-online does not correctly identify managed links

2023-09-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> Somehow, wait-online now times out, while it didn't before this update. I just created https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/2036358 to track this. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2033560] Re: package ufw 0.36.1-4ubuntu0.1 failed to install/upgrade: o subprocesso instalado, do pacote ufw, o script post-installation retornou erro do status de saída 10

2023-09-01 Thread Jamie Strandboge
The DpkgHistoryLog.txt has lots of entries that aren't ufw specific: Start-Date: 2023-08-16 18:22:34 Commandline: aptdaemon role='role-commit-packages' sender=':1.134' Upgrade: libgpgmepp6:amd64 (1.16.0-1.2ubuntu4, 1.16.0-1.2ubuntu4.1), libgl1-amber-dri:amd64 (21.3.7-0ubuntu1,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-25 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw usage, including ufw enable. I also performed the testing for this issue on focal: $ apt-cache policy ufw ufw: Installed: 0.36-6ubuntu1 Candidate: 0.36-6ubuntu1 Version table: *** 0.36-6ubuntu1 500 500

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-25 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw usage, including ufw enable. I also performed the testing for this issue on jammy: $ apt-cache policy ufw ufw: Installed: 0.36.1-4build1 Candidate: 0.36.1-4build1 Version table: *** 0.36.1-4build1 500 500

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-25 Thread Jamie Strandboge
For lunar, the crmsh autopkgtest issue was unrelated. I reran the autopkgtest and it passed: https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-lunar/lunar/s390x/c/crmsh/20230725_140910_37cd9@/log.gz Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw usage, including ufw enable.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-20 Thread Jamie Strandboge
n: ufw (Ubuntu Lunar) Status: New => In Progress ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Lunar) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in U

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-19 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Oh, I did mean kinetic, yes. Lunar should get an update too (though, as mentioned, that isn't in the Microsoft store it seems). I'll prepare an upload for Lunar, add a task and put these back to In Progress after. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-19 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Robie, https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/ubuntu/9PDXGNCFSCZV?hl=en- us=us=1 seems to indicate that only 22.04.2 is supported. Users have talked about upgrading via the command line to 22.10, but I figured that Lunar was about to EOL and no point in updating it at this time. ** Changed in:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Focal) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Jammy) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Mantic) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) -- You received this bug notificat

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-07-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Description changed: + [ Impact ] + + Currently, ufw is unusable on WSL due to this bug because the get_ppid() + function traces back on /proc when the command name has parentheses + (like in WSL). get_ppid() is called with 'ufw enable' and so ufw is not + able to be enabled on WSL. The

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2003339] Re: kwin_x11: The X11 connection broke: I/O error (code 1)

2023-06-01 Thread Jamie Scott
According to the launchpad page for mesa 22.2.5-0ubuntu0.1~22.04.2 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/22.2.5-0ubuntu0.1~22.04.2) the package is still in proposed, not updates. @tjaalton 's message in #72 suggests it has been released to updates but this appears incorrect. I'm on 22.04

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1844743] Re: ufw missing .conf for syslog-ng

2023-05-21 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ufw Importance: Medium => Wishlist ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Importance: Medium => Wishlist -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1844743

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2015645] Re: ufw crashes in wsl2

2023-05-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Mantic) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Focal) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Jammy) Importance: Undecided

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1951018] Re: No ability to discern IPv4 vs IPv6 rules through Python

2023-05-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
This was fixed in 0.36.2. ** Changed in: ufw Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1951018 Title: No ability to discern

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2023-05-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
This was fixed in 0.36.2. ** Changed in: ufw Importance: Undecided => Medium ** Changed in: ufw Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) ** Changed in: ufw Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Med

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1951018] Re: No ability to discern IPv4 vs IPv6 rules through Python

2023-05-16 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thank you for reporting a bug in ufw. I've committed a fix for this to add get_rules_ipv4() and get_rules_ipv6(). ** Changed in: ufw Importance: Undecided => Wishlist ** Changed in: ufw Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: ufw Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie S

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2014031] Re: ufw fails trying to enable

2023-04-22 Thread Jamie Strandboge
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 2015645 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015645 This looks like it may be a dupe of https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015645 (the fix for it should fix this). ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed ** This bug has been marked a

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2014031] Re: ufw fails trying to enable

2023-03-31 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks for the report. Does this happen every time of just occasionally? It's clear that the open(name).readlines() isn't returning anything, which is interesting. Do you have any other information on what might be causing this? (the fix should be straightforward without it though) -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1951491] Re: Can't run snaps: .slice/session-1.scope is not a snap cgroup

2023-02-15 Thread Jamie Davis
For those of us who are using Xubuntu, X2Go and experiencing this problem, I have a work-around: I had already switched firefox to the apt repository version, so I installed the chromium snap to test with. As expected, it failed to launch with the same issue mentioned at the top of this thread:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1971409] Re: value_copy: Assertion `arg->contents != nullptr' failed.

2022-05-16 Thread jamie pate
see also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29045#c3 where the gdb list recommends updating to a stable version of gdb ** Bug watch added: Sourceware.org Bugzilla #29045 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29045 -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1970731] Re: iptables empty when using firewalld

2022-04-28 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Reassigning to firewalld as the description mentions that ufw is disabled. This is not a bug though because iptables relies on certain tables/chains being used and it looks like firewalld doesn't use those (which is fine for firewalld to do). You should be able to see all netfilter firewall rules

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1896772] Re: systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes on start

2022-04-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: isc-dhcp (Ubuntu) Status: New => Triaged -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1896772 Title: systemd-resolved configures no Current

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1896772] Re: systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes on start

2022-04-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ifupdown (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1896772 Title: systemd-resolved configures no Current

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1896772] Re: systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes on start

2022-04-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Also affects: ifupdown (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: isc-dhcp (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1896772] Re: systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes on start

2022-04-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I grep'd for 'netif' in /etc and noticed: $ sudo grep -r netif /etc /etc/network/if-down.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif /etc/network/if-up.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif /etc/dhcp/dhclient-exit-hooks.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1896772] Re: systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes on start

2022-04-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I see this on 22.04 after upgrading from 20.04. $ journalctl |grep 'Failed to save link data' Apr 17 15:25:52 hostname systemd-resolved[19095]: Failed to save link data /run/systemd/resolve/netif/3: Permission denied Apr 17 15:25:52 hostname systemd-resolved[19095]: Failed to save link data

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1968608] Re: networking/firewall issues after upgrade when using iptables-nft

2022-04-11 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I filed https://github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues/68 for the docker snap unconditionally using xtables. ** Bug watch added: github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues #68 https://github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues/68 ** Also affects: iptables (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1968608] Re: networking/firewall issues after upgrade when using iptables-nft

2022-04-11 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Description changed: Filing this issue in the hopes that it will help people who are upgrading from a system that previously used xtables to one that is using netfilter. ufw uses the 'iptables' suite of commands under the hood. As of iptables 1.8, iptables ships with two different

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1968608] [NEW] networking/firewall issues after upgrade when using iptables-nft

2022-04-11 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Public bug reported: Filing this issue in the hopes that it will help people who are upgrading from a system that previously used xtables to one that is using netfilter. ufw uses the 'iptables' suite of commands under the hood. As of iptables 1.8, iptables ships with two different backends for

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-05 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Tags removed: block-proposed block-proposed-jammy -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039 Title: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-05 Thread Jamie Strandboge
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/0.36.1-3ubuntu1 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039 Title: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-05 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: New => Triaged ** Changed in: cloud-init (Ubuntu) Status: New => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-05 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Oh! I missed from the initial report that network-pre was deleted which clears up things considerably on my end (since I wasn't able to reproduce, I didn't see it locally either). :) Preparing an upload now. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1956029] Re: ufw remains inactive at boot time

2022-01-04 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks for the response and glad you got it worked out. It reminds me that I would like to document using fail2ban with ufw more. ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-04 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> This makes me want to understand the cloud-init configuration that is in play. Can you share it? I'm thinking I should upload: DefaultDependencies=no Before=network-pre.target Wants=network-pre.target local-fs.target After=local-fs.target Do you have any objections? This would remove the

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2022-01-04 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> I don't believe your reproducer is valid - cloud-init is not installed anymore, as autopkgtest-buildvm-ubuntu-cloud removes it when building the VM, whereas it remains on the cloud images, as it's needed there to actually get the IP address during boot. Note, in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1956029] Re: ufw remains inactive at boot time

2021-12-30 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> How to I ensure that ufw is fully up and initialised BEFORE the fail2ban service starts? This line from your existing fail2ban.service should be sufficient: After=network.target iptables.service firewalld.service ip6tables.service ipset.service nftables.service ufw.service See

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1956029] Re: ufw remains inactive at boot time

2021-12-30 Thread Jamie Strandboge
> 4. you didn't mention which distro you are using This would be good to know since some distros are using iptables 1.8.x which has two different backends that are in play. Which distro are you using and what is the output of `iptables --version` -- You received this bug notification because

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1956029] Re: ufw remains inactive at boot time

2021-12-30 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks for the bug report. A few things: 1. I'm not sure what 'networking stops' means precisely in the context of this bug report. Does 'ufw disable' restore the network? Is the network torn down? Something else (you are using a lot of limit rules instead of allow rules, I wonder if you are

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Attachment added: "plot-2.svg" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/+bug/1950039/+attachment/5550320/+files/plot-2.svg -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Attachment added: "plot-3.svg" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/+bug/1950039/+attachment/5550321/+files/plot-3.svg -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Attached are two 'systemd-analyze plot's for the autopktest jammy system with cloud-init and ufw installed. plot-2.svg is for booting the system with 0.36.1-2 (current jammy) and plot-3.svg is 0.36.1-3 (proposed jammy). Notice how plot-2.svg, ufw and systemd-networkd start quite a bit earlier than

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
@juliank - note I wasn't so much talking about 'blame' as much as understanding, so I apologize if it came across that way. Since I wasn't able to reproduce, I was trying to reason through my thoughts to help the discussion go further since I'm not able to diagnose it myself. In a nutshell, I

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039 Title: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
@juliank - where did you see these errors? I booted with a freshly created autopkgtest jammy vm, installed the package from proposed and it worked fine. Please see my previous comments-- this does not seem to be a bug in ufw since it is using the documented unit setup that systemd recommends for

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726856] Re: ufw does not start automatically at boot

2021-12-29 Thread Jamie Strandboge
@Stefan, I suggest you try the fix that is in Debian. See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990834#27 @Myron, yours sounds like a different issue. I suggest you file a new bug, downloading https://git.launchpad.net/ufw/tree/tests/check- requirements and including the output of

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1951018] Re: No ability to discern IPv4 vs IPv6 rules through Python

2021-11-17 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Also affects: ufw Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1951018 Title: No ability to discern IPv4 vs IPv6 rules

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-11-06 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Also, to be clear, when I say I can't look at the ufw portions 'for a while', I mean ~10 days (doing this from my phone). Thinking about this, my thinking is this is less about the Before/Wants on network-pre and the removal of DefaultDependencies and more about Before=network being removed

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-11-06 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I mention firewalld cause while ufw could be reverted, firewalld users would presumably also hit it, as well as any other software that does it. If the ufw change is reverted, IME someone should audit the archive for other occurrences of this pattern and update the units accordingly). -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1950039] Re: ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network

2021-11-06 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Fyi, the current configuration is the same as firewalld upstream and what is in Debian, Moreover it is following systemd documentation for firewall software so I wonder if the change simply uncovered a latent bug Fyi, I won't be able to look at this for a while so if you need to back it out,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2021-11-03 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Tested 0.36-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 on bionic. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order and I spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I didn't test on an iSCSI system so won't add verification-done-focal at this time, but I think the testing

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2021-11-03 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Tested 0.36-6ubuntu1 on focal. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order and I spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I didn't test on an iSCSI system so won't add verification-done-focal at this time, but I think the testing is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1933117] Re: ufw delete can confuse protocol-specific rule with otherwise matching 'proto any' rule

2021-11-03 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Tested 0.36-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 on bionic. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order and I spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I was able to verify the this bug is fixed via the test steps. ** Tags removed: verification-needed-bionic

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1933117] Re: ufw delete can confuse protocol-specific rule with otherwise matching 'proto any' rule

2021-11-03 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Tested 0.36-6ubuntu1 on focal. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order. I was able to verify the this bug is fixed via the test steps. ** Tags removed: verification-needed-focal ** Tags added: verification-done-focal -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726856] Re: ufw does not start automatically at boot

2021-11-02 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I've looked at this issue again in reference to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990834 and while I still cannot reproduce, I plan to change to the following (I won't ship the commented out lines of course): [Unit] Description=Uncomplicated firewall Documentation=man:ufw(8)

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2021-10-13 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Ah, I hadn't checked that yet. Yes, please feel free to do the Impish SRU and the 0.36.1-2 that I just uploaded to Debian will float into 'J' after it opens. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2021-10-13 Thread Jamie Strandboge
For Impish, lets update debian/master, then I'll upload there and sync to Ubuntu. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1946804 Title: ufw breaks boot on network

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1946804] Re: ufw breaks boot on network root filesystem

2021-10-13 Thread Jamie Strandboge
I merged the changes into master. Thanks Mauricio! ** Changed in: ufw Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1946804 Title: ufw

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1794064] Re: Clicking a hyperlink in a PDF fails to open it if the default browser is a snap

2021-10-07 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Olivier, yes, I shouldn't be assigned. Ian, you're right the profile is suboptimal (it's also old so likely needs updating). Do note that this is a separate named profile and evince (and if this is put in an abstraction, anything that uses the abstraction) only has the

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1794064] Re: Clicking a hyperlink in a PDF fails to open it if the default browser is a snap

2021-10-07 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: evince (Ubuntu) Assignee: Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1794064 Title: Click

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1933117] Re: ufw delete can confuse protocol-specific rule with otherwise matching 'proto any' rule

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726856] Re: ufw does not start automatically at boot

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
@cajicas215 - your comment is not helpful. If you look at the other comments in this bug, there has been nothing to fix in ufw. I suggest looking at the comments in this bug and seeing if any of the issues others have seen apply to you. If not, please report a new bug with steps to reproduce. --

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726856] Re: ufw does not start automatically at boot

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
@Fabian - your change both makes the firewall start after networking, brings python into the boot process (which can slow down boot) and changes the intent of 'systemctl stop ufw' from unloading the firewall to disabling the firewall in the moment and forever in the future, which is inappropriate

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1934931] Re: (X)ubuntu 20.04: GUFW and MS-Teams slow down traffic intermittently

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
It is unclear from the description that this has anything to do with networking. Are there any firewall denials in the logs (eg, /var/log/ufw.log or /var/log/kern.log)? If you disable ufw (sudo ufw disable) does the problem go away? As an aside, IIRC, MS-Teams is not a lightweight application and

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1921350] Re: UFW hangs indefinitely on any action

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
There is another bug related to ansible in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1911637. I suggest following that one. Leaving this one as Expired. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1909373] Re: package ufw 0.36-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 failed to install/upgrade: installed ufw package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 10

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
There isn't anything in the logs the indicates that there what happened. Do you have any other information? ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1898696] Re: add some deliminiter between ipv4 and ipv6 in ufw status

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks you for the report. It is difficult to convey ipv4 vs ipv6 vs both in list form and currently ufw lists any ipv6 rules with '(v6)' as part of the To and From (as seen in your paste). It isn't clear to me how adding an 'IPv6' break would improve this... I'm going to mark this as wishlist

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1911637] Re: Another app is currently holding the xtables lock

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
** Changed in: ufw Status: New => Triaged -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1911637 Title: Another app is currently holding the xtables lock Status in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1911637] Re: Another app is currently holding the xtables lock

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Actually, in thinking about this, ufw could use 'iptables -w' under the hood. I recall having troubles with this approach when providing the fix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1204579. I suggest following my advice in my last comment to avoid the issue while using 'iptables -w' is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1911637] Re: Another app is currently holding the xtables lock

2021-09-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks for the report. I read the ansible bug but this issue is actually coming from the underlying iptables tool. Something on the system is manipulating the firewall via iptables at the same time that the ufw command is being run. As described, this would happen with any firewall software. If

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1933828] Re: NTP servers from DHCP are not propagated to timesyncd

2021-08-30 Thread Jamie Chang
** Changed in: oem-priority Importance: Undecided => Critical -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1933828 Title: NTP servers from DHCP are not

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1938005] Re: ufw ignores rules

2021-08-16 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Recall that ufw uses connection tracking so if you add a deny rule, you may need to expire the connection tracking. One way to do this is to run: `conntrack -D -d ` (see man conntrack for details). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1938005] Re: ufw ignores rules

2021-08-07 Thread Jamie Strandboge
/etc/default/ufw has: DEFAULT_OUTPUT_POLICY="ACCEPT" This means that all outgoing traffic is allowed. If you would like to change that, you can use: $ sudo ufw deny outgoing This will make it more difficult for you to manage the firewall since you'll have to add rules like: $ sudo ufw allow

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1938005] Re: ufw ignores rules

2021-08-06 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thank you for the bug report. You mentioned that the problem happens after running `iptables -F`. This command removes all the rules from the firewall (see man iptables) so it would be expected that the firewall would not work correctly after running this. I'm going to mark this as Invalid, but

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1937036] [NEW] package initramfs-tools 0.136ubuntu6.6 failed to install/upgrade: installed initramfs-tools package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status

2021-07-21 Thread Jamie Cruickshank
Public bug reported: I think my boot partition is full. Idea: could it have a pre-install script that checks if the install partition has space, and if not then provide a link to some documentation on how to find and purge old kernels? ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 20.04 Package:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1929212] Re: package initramfs-tools 0.136ubuntu6.4 failed to install/upgrade: installed initramfs-tools package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 1

2021-05-21 Thread Jamie Cruickshank
Was getting similar errors on on subsequent `sudo apt upgrade`s - worked around by freeing boot space as suggested in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/1899907 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1929212] [NEW] package initramfs-tools 0.136ubuntu6.4 failed to install/upgrade: installed initramfs-tools package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status

2021-05-21 Thread Jamie Cruickshank
Public bug reported: Crash report appeared immediately after wake-up from suspend On Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS. ``` $  apt-cache policy initramfs-tools initramfs-tools: Installed: 0.136ubuntu6.4 Candidate: 0.136ubuntu6.5 Version table: 0.136ubuntu6.5 500 500

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1921350] Re: UFW hangs indefinitely on any action

2021-03-25 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks you for reporting a bug. Are there other ufw commands running at the same time? Eg, what is the output of: $ ps auxww|grep ufw ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1914816] Re: ufw not logging if it decides to stop all traffic ? Confused

2021-03-01 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Thanks for the additional information! :) ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1914816 Title: ufw

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1914816] Re: ufw not logging if it decides to stop all traffic ? Confused

2021-03-01 Thread Jamie Strandboge
The check is not free, but it is an interesting idea to do this. I've created a wishlist bug for it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1917325 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 881137] Re: UFW does not clean iptables setting from /etc/ufw/before.rules

2021-02-13 Thread Jamie Strandboge
CzBiX, ufw does not yet manage the nat table (though there have been a couple of false starts). However, it does manage the FORWARD chain with 'ufw route' so it is possible for you to create a chain in the nat table in /etc/ufw/before.rules, and then use ufw route for other things. This is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1914816] Re: ufw not logging if it decides to stop all traffic ? Confused

2021-02-13 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Hi. A few things: ufw is capable of logging (see 'man ufw' the part about 'ufw logging' as well as per rule logging with 'ufw ... log' or 'ufw ... log-all'. It is also capable of ipv6 (see /etc/default/ufw. Also, gufw is a different project than ufw, but it sounds like the issue you saw may be

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1897369] Re: apparmor: Allow cups-browsed to change nice value (CAP_SYS_NICE)

2020-12-01 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Till, it allows quite a few things (from man capabilities): CAP_SYS_NICE * Raise process nice value (nice(2), setpriority(2)) and change the nice value for arbitrary processes; * set real-time scheduling policies for calling process, and set scheduling

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1904192] Re: ebtables can not rename just created chain

2020-11-18 Thread Jamie Strandboge
FYI, sponsored Alex's upload to hirsute-proposed where it is building. Did the same for groovy-proposed and it is sitting in unapproved waiting for the next steps of the SRU process. ** Changed in: iptables (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed ** Changed in: iptables (Ubuntu)

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >